Be aware that much of some countries is mountainous, or
otherwise difficult, by virtue of swamps, deserts, cold etc.

Definition: For the
column, agricultural useful land , I have taken the CIA definition
for arable land, that is, land cultivated for crops that
are replanted after each harvest like wheat, maize, and rice.

The CIA separately defines permanent cropland as land cultivated
for crops that are not replanted after each harvest like citrus, coffee, and
rubber; includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and
vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber.

I have done this because my intention is to have some approximation for the
potential food self-sufficiency of the various countries listed. In third-world
countries, a great deal of the category defined as permanent crops
is production for export and for foreign exchange. Generally, the profits
end up in the bank accounts of local agent kleptocracies and their Western
corporate paymasters; and, of course, the cheap, luxury items are sold in
advanced countries, to the detriment of the local poor.

My concern, at this point, is not any moral judgement as to whether
this is good, bad or neutral (in the present state of the world, my inclination
is to regard it as the way of the world and fairly neutral). However, I bring
this to your attention in order that you may think clearly about these matters
for yourself. You might, for example, decide that you would rather seek out,
and add in, the permanent crop figures; or again, you might imagine that increased
land could be brought under cultivation by the application of ever-advancing,
agricultural technology. You might think that trading crops for Western technology
might, in the longer run, raise the general standard of life in backward countries.
You might wonder about the strategic importance of food security, especially
for some Western countries. Not one of these is an easy, or settled, question.

It has been said that trade is like
a magic wand, capable of transforming food
into aeroplanes, or haircuts, into holidays in Ibiza.

**It is easy to confuse
the figures in columns 2, 3 and 4. Much electricity generation is done
using fossil fuels. Fossil fuel electricity generation is about 38%
efficient, and electricity is the end-use form of power used by consumers.

Column 2 represents the total input-energy usage by
a country. For every unit of fossil fuel, or other energy source, that
is consumed by a country in electrical generation, only 38% of that unit
will end up as usable end-user energy. When referring
to alternative energy, the inputs are notional and based upon this 38%
efficiency figure. In other words, for example, a given quantity
of electricity produced by nuclear power generation will be deemed to
have taken the same amount of fossil fuel energy as if it had been generated
using fossil fuels.

The figure of 38% is a crude average, as used by
BP. While similar efficiency losses will be involved in non-fossil fuel
electricity generation, these losses may not show up clearly, as only
the end-use electrical energy will appear in the relevant columns.

In column 4, the percentage is the delivered
end-user energy, as a percentage of column 2 (the energy input to the
country). It can also be read as the degree of electrification of that
country.

End-user energy is difficult to define and to understand.

Is the energy going into the power station to be regarded as the
end-user of the energy coming into the country?

Or is the end-user to be considered the person who swithches on
a light at home?

What of the person who switches on a light in a factory? Is the
factory the end-user, or is it the person or company who purchases
the manufacturers goods?

What of recycled waste, used to produce further energy?

What of the hairdressing salon that blow-dies your hair? Is it different
if you do this job at home?

These are the questions asked by added-value taxmen, or governments
adjusting their GNP fictions.

Neither am I going to attend to the various energy losses inevitable
in the production process.

I have no intention of plumbing this sort of complexity, my purpose
being to show the broad outlines of energy production and usage without
unnecessary confusion.

Thus, my definition of end-user energy is related
directly
to the energy inputs of the country.

The percentages in the remaining columns relate to the relative amounts
of electricity generated by various means in a country. The percentages
in the left part of the table have no bearing on the percentages in the
right part of the table.

The area of the United States of America is 916,192,300 hectares [9,161,923
sq.km].Approximately 20% of this land is rated as agriculturally
useful. As you will see from the table, meeting
energy needs from biofuel land usage is no done deal, or as Pimentel puts it,
“The authors suggest that cellulosic ethanol sources can provide 30%
of U.S. current petroleum consumption. The report advocates using 1.3 billion
tons of cellulosic biomass. They are suggesting using nearly 66% of all forests,
all agricultural crops, and all grasses each year to produce this cellulosic
ethanol. Literally the U.S. would be stripped of its vegetation. The result
would be that soil erosion would intensify, water runoff would increase, and
global warming would increase.”

The State of Connecticut has an area of 1,435,400 ha. [14,357 sq.km].
The area of Delaware is 644,470 ha. [6,447 sq.km].
Texas has an area of 69,562,100 ha. [695,621sq.km].
The area of California is 42,397,000 ha. [423,970 sq. km].